UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4784

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
JAMES CURTIS SPEARS,
Defendant Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton
Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00372-NCT-1)

Submitted:

January 22, 2010

Decided:

February 25, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher A. Beechler, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for

Appellant.
Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
James Curtis Spears pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement,

to

violation

of

district

one
21

count
U.S.C.

court

of

distribution

841(a)(1),

calculated

of

cocaine

(b)(1)(A)

Spears

base,

(2006).

advisory

in
The

Guidelines

imprisonment range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

(2008) at 262 to 327 months, but granted Spears request for a
downward

variance

and

imposed

sentence

of

240

months

imprisonment, the minimum imprisonment term required by statute.

Spears

now

Anders

v.

appeals.

Counsel

California,

appeal is frivolous.
pro

se

386

has

U.S.

filed

738

brief

(1967),

pursuant

stating

that

to
the

Spears was informed of his right to file a

supplemental

brief

but

has

Government declined to file a brief.

not

done

so,

and

the

We affirm.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
review.

Our review of the transcript of the plea hearing leads

us to conclude that the district court substantially complied

with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Spears
guilty

plea

infringed.
court

and

that

Spears

substantial

rights

were

not

Critically, the transcript reveals that the district

ensured

that

the

plea

was

supported

by

an

independent

factual basis and that Spears entered the plea knowingly and
voluntarily with an understanding of the attendant consequences.
2

See

United

States

v.

DeFusco,

949

F.2d

114,

116,

119-20

(4th Cir. 1991).

Turning
reasonableness,

to

Spears

applying

sentence,

an

we

review

abuse-of-discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

this

review,

we

first

examine

the

sentence

it

for

standard.

In conducting

for

significant

procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly

calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
mandatory,
[(2006)]

failing
factors,

to

consider

selecting

the

[18

sentence

U.S.C.]
based

3553(a)

on

clearly

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen

sentence.

Id.

must

an

make

presented,

When rendering a sentence, the district court

individualized

applying

the

assessment

relevant

based

3553(a)

on

the

factors

facts
to

the

specific circumstances of the case and the defendant, and must

state in open court the particular reasons supporting its chosen
sentence.

United

States

v.

Carter,

564

F.3d

325,

328

(4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted).

If the sentence is free from procedural error, we then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
552

U.S.

at

51;

United

States

v.

Evans,

526

(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008).

F.3d

Gall,

155,

161

Substantive

reasonableness review entails taking into account the totality

of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from
3

the Guidelines range.

United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468,

473 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).

Even if we

would have imposed a different sentence, this fact alone is

Id. at

insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.

474

(internal

statutorily

quotation

required

marks

sentence

omitted).

is

per

Further,
se

[a]

reasonable.

United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 129 S. Ct. 743 (2008).
Here,

the

district

court

correctly

calculated

the

advisory Guidelines range and heard argument from the parties on

the appropriate sentence and allocution from Spears.

The court

considered relevant 3553(a) factors, addressing on the record

the nature and circumstances of the offense, Spears history and
characteristics, and the need for the sentence to reflect the
seriousness of Spears offense, promote respect for the law, and
deter

Spears.

In

granting

Spears

request

for

downward

variance, the court explained that it considered the need to

provide just punishment for Spears.

Based on these factors, the

court concluded that a sentence of 240 months imprisonment, the

minimum imprisonment term required by statute, was sufficient,
but

not

greater

sentencing.

We

than

necessary,

conclude

that

to

the

achieve
district

the

purposes

court

of

adequately

explained its rationale for imposing the variant sentence and

that the reasons relied upon by the district court are valid
4

considerations under 3553(a) and justify the sentence imposed.

See Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473-76.
term

was

the

minimum

statutorily-required

Further, the 240-month prison

term

prison

Farrior, 535 F.3d at 224.

required

term

is

by

always

statute,

and

reasonable.

a
See

Thus, we conclude that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Spears.

We

therefore

affirm

the

district

courts

judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Spears, in writing, of

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Spears requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,

then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation.

Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Spears.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED